- NSA exploits the dysfunction in Washington as it allows NSA to do whatever they please.

- NSA works the way it does because Congress wants it to.

- 90% of our fury ought to be directed at Congress. The other 90% to NSA and the other 90% to AT&T, Verizon, ISPs, search engine providers etc.

- Neither Congress or the WhiteHouse have any intention of revoking the Patriot Act. There's no will to review the legislation which authorizes the NSA to conduct a frontal assault on people's privacy.

This is one of the worst parts for me. The defense that "just because we didn't do the dirty work, it's not illegal or unconstitutional" should be one that bothers everyone. It smacks of hiring a hit man so you don't get charged with murder.

This is one of the points that I think so very clearly illustrates why corporations should most definitely not be afforded the same sort of rights as a human being. Never mind their effectively limitless lifespan and their access to unfathomable wealth which can be used to manipulate politics to their advantage—they are soulless, remorseless, amoral entities which care for nothing but extending shareholder wealth.

Questioning the morality of complying with government orders that are clearly immoral (tho, technically, legal) doesn't even compute for corporations.

So I see no reason why they should be allowed to participate in activities that are clearly meant for moral (or even immoral) human beings.

This is one of the worst parts for me. The defense that "just because we didn't do the dirty work, it's not illegal or unconstitutional" should be one that bothers everyone. It smacks of hiring a hit man so you don't get charged with murder.

Consider the US has been happy to ship actual people overseas so other countries can do the dirty work (extraordinary rendition, although apparently greatly restricted under the Obama administration), what's a little data as well?

This is one of the worst parts for me. The defense that "just because we didn't do the dirty work, it's not illegal or unconstitutional" should be one that bothers everyone. It smacks of hiring a hit man so you don't get charged with murder.

Consider the US has been happy to ship actual people overseas so other countries can do the dirty work (extraordinary rendition, although apparently greatly restricted under the Obama administration), what's a little data as well?

Yeah, Obama decided it was okay to torture them ourselves instead of outsourcing it.

This really deserves to be listed on a summary? If I remember correctly this was in a report that disclosed that they had on average one incident a year, and among those incidents they had a few cases where someone entered their ex's name.

Considering the thousands of NSA employees that likely had access, I would think that this small amount of stupid acts marks them as being incredibly better at following rules than the vast majority of humanity.

If more than zero incidents is unacceptable then you are holding the government to a standard that can't be met. Analysts are human beings. They are apparently much more law abiding and responsible than the average person, but they are still human and someone is going to use poor judgement sooner or later.

Basically, according to the NSA and their interpretation of the Patriot Act or any court concern, we are all guilty until proven innocent ... and they'll let us know when our innocence is actually proven.

You know, it's funny. I remember reading something somewhere along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty."

I wonder when this pendulum swing of the "terrorist scare" (similar to the "red scare" of the 1950s, IMHO) will swing back away from these steps into secret police and abandonment of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Those documents are not "pick & choose" menus. People fought wars, burned homes, and killed one another for them.

At some point, the pendulum swing in all this will either go back toward equilibrium or it will swing across a line whose arc has not ever before ended non-violently.

My question is what are the concrete steps we - the average person - need to be taking to help restore the equilibrium?

Oh ungods, I couldn't help but laugh at this line... though I should really be sighing and shaking my head.

Though, on the other hand, it kinda fits in with the whole outsourcing trend of current day IT. Something not quite as feasible at home? That's okay, let's just outsource the issue to some foreign country. Besides, it'll probably be cheaper to do it that way. And if any problems do arise? Well, what a convenient scapegoat we have! Totally not our fault. Really.

This really deserves to be listed on a summary? If I remember correctly this was in a report that disclosed that they had on average one incident a year, and among those incidents they had a few cases where someone entered their ex's name.

Considering the thousands of NSA employees that likely had access, I would think that this small amount of stupid acts marks them as being incredibly better at following rules than the vast majority of humanity.

If more than zero incidents is unacceptable then you are holding the government to a standard that can't be met. Analysts are human beings. They are apparently much more law abiding and responsible than the average person, but they are still human and someone is going to use poor judgement sooner or later.

The issue is not that a small number of LOVEINT incidents occurred. There were probably more incidents of poking into data about celebrities. The issue is that it appeared so hard for the NSA to detect the LOVEINT and that the punishments were inconceivably light.

“To date no recipient of a production order has opted to invoke this section of the statute.”

That still makes the carriers out to be innocent. Both AT&T and Verizon approached the government about this and received millions for their work. They are active accomplices. AT&T has a parallel program working with the DEA which is, if anything, worse, because it doesn't even have the weak protections of FISA.

And while the NSA is doing surveillance theoretically for foreign intel and terrorism watch reasons, they are also providing information to the FBI and DEA, who are using it for law enforcement purposes, and doing "parallel construction" to conceal from the courts the true source of the information they are acting on it.

I think those are pretty critical parts of the story. Maybe it should have been a top 10 instead of 5.

Oh ungods, I couldn't help but laugh at this line... though I should really be sighing and shaking my head.

Though, on the other hand, it kinda fits in with the whole outsourcing trend of current day IT. Something not quite as feasible at home? That's okay, let's just outsource the issue to some foreign country. Besides, it'll probably be cheaper to do it that way. And if any problems do arise? Well, what a convenient scapegoat we have! Totally not our fault. Really.

I'm probably butchering this quote, but here it goes anyway.

Frasier: A patient told me the funniest story in session today Niles, but I can't tell you because of doctor-patient confidentiality.Niles: Ooh, I came up with a loophole. I'll be your psychiatrist for a minute, and that way you can tell me anything.

This is one of the worst parts for me. The defense that "just because we didn't do the dirty work, it's not illegal or unconstitutional" should be one that bothers everyone. It smacks of hiring a hit man so you don't get charged with murder.

A Snowden leaked document disputes the idea that they're using the UK to circumvent US law:

Only one handpicked group of nations is excluded -- countries that the NSA has defined as close friends, or "2nd party," as one internal document indicates. They include the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. A document classified as "top secret" states that, "The NSA does NOT target its 2nd party partners, nor request that 2nd parties do anything that is inherently illegal for NSA to do."

Wow, you guys were able to find 5 things that have changed as a result of the leaks? You must be the best investigative journalists on Earth, because from where I sit it seems like most people give just as few shits knowing the government spies on them as when they only assumed the government spies on them.

This is one of the worst parts for me. The defense that "just because we didn't do the dirty work, it's not illegal or unconstitutional" should be one that bothers everyone. It smacks of hiring a hit man so you don't get charged with murder.

A Snowden leaked document disputes the idea that they're using the UK to circumvent US law:

Only one handpicked group of nations is excluded -- countries that the NSA has defined as close friends, or "2nd party," as one internal document indicates. They include the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. A document classified as "top secret" states that, "The NSA does NOT target its 2nd party partners, nor request that 2nd parties do anything that is inherently illegal for NSA to do."

I am skeptical about these claims. Ok, we don't "request" such data. But I'm sure that if they find something without respecting our "minimization procedures," we don't turn our noses up at it. And vice versa.

Would somebody mind figuring out what this is "supposed" to be for? Supposedly all this "security" has been around to keep Americans safe. It is not. It is making a mockery of any constitutional or democratic rights that the American citizens supposedly enjoy.

Right now it looks like the NSA, the US Government, and a lot of telcoms/tech companies are scrambling to do damage control in what appears to be a serious breech of well - the rights and freedoms ostensibly enjoyed by Americans (and many citizens abroad as we now know).

One thing I've learned personally is how politically polarizing leaking classified information can be. It seems to some that there can be no classified information horrific enough to warrant breaking the chain of command. Violating our constitutional rights to some seems to take the back burner to doing what your superiors say and following the rules.

Oh, and how crazy some people can behave when you so much as breathe the T word*.

Basically, according to the NSA and their interpretation of the Patriot Act or any court concern, we are all guilty until proven innocent ... and they'll let us know when our innocence is actually proven.

You know, it's funny. I remember reading something somewhere along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty."

I wonder when this pendulum swing of the "terrorist scare" (similar to the "red scare" of the 1950s, IMHO) will swing back away from these steps into secret police and abandonment of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Those documents are not "pick & choose" menus. People fought wars, burned homes, and killed one another for them.

At some point, the pendulum swing in all this will either go back toward equilibrium or it will swing across a line whose arc has not ever before ended non-violently.

My question is what are the concrete steps we - the average person - need to be taking to help restore the equilibrium?

I often wonder why people keep asking the bolded question. The answer involves hard work, sacrifice, and finding some common ground with people. The problem is you have to many straight party voters who think about identifying letters [D/R] rather than how a candidate votes or where that candidate's money comes from. If you really want to make a difference then go knock on some doors and explain to people what is happening. Get involved in your local politics and run for precinct chair. Vote by value rather than by party. Become a state delegate whenever you can. Personally, I'm working to get my so-called rep, Joe Barton, booted from office for his votes for the Patriot Act and the NSA among other bad things he's voted for. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, seems to have this head screwed on fairly straight.

This really deserves to be listed on a summary? If I remember correctly this was in a report that disclosed that they had on average one incident a year, and among those incidents they had a few cases where someone entered their ex's name.

Considering the thousands of NSA employees that likely had access, I would think that this small amount of stupid acts marks them as being incredibly better at following rules than the vast majority of humanity.

If more than zero incidents is unacceptable then you are holding the government to a standard that can't be met. Analysts are human beings. They are apparently much more law abiding and responsible than the average person, but they are still human and someone is going to use poor judgement sooner or later.

So if only one employee of a private company embezzles a million dollars once per year, it should be acceptable? Most companies have the common sense to require dual signatures or other methods to *prevent* such incidents, rather than ignoring them and writing them off to "poor judgment" after the fact. I would expect a government agency entrusted with great secrets to be more proactive than a private company.

Oh, and how crazy some people can behave when you so much as breathe the T word*.

* = terrorism

You said the T word!

There are leakers, spies, and whistleblowers, and their motives vary a lot from individual to individual. Of course, when asked, they all call themselves whistleblowers.

Leakers occasionally call themselves whistleblowers. I dont' recall McVeigh, Bin Laden or the Rosenbergs taking classified information and revealing it to the public, or calling themselves whistleblowers. There is no vagueness where you imply there is.

Oh, and how crazy some people can behave when you so much as breathe the T word*.

* = terrorism

You said the T word!

There are leakers, spies, and whistleblowers, and their motives vary a lot from individual to individual. Of course, when asked, they all call themselves whistleblowers.

Leakers occasionally call themselves whistleblowers. I dont' recall McVeigh, Bin Laden or the Rosenbergs taking classified information and revealing it to the public, or calling themselves whistleblowers. There is no vagueness where you imply there is.

Though terrorists might employ spies, the leaking we're talking about is pretty distinct from the acts of war targeting civilians to force political change (terrorism).

I think chipmunkofdoom2 meant that claiming to "prevent terrorism" is a way to get carte-blanche for your organization's snooping.

This really deserves to be listed on a summary? If I remember correctly this was in a report that disclosed that they had on average one incident a year, and among those incidents they had a few cases where someone entered their ex's name.

Considering the thousands of NSA employees that likely had access, I would think that this small amount of stupid acts marks them as being incredibly better at following rules than the vast majority of humanity.

If more than zero incidents is unacceptable then you are holding the government to a standard that can't be met. Analysts are human beings. They are apparently much more law abiding and responsible than the average person, but they are still human and someone is going to use poor judgement sooner or later.

So if only one employee of a private company embezzles a million dollars once per year, it should be acceptable? Most companies have the common sense to require dual signatures or other methods to *prevent* such incidents, rather than ignoring them and writing them off to "poor judgment" after the fact. I would expect a government agency entrusted with great secrets to be more proactive than a private company.

Those were all self-reported incidents.

A more app analogy would be an employee embezzles a million dollars and turns himself in while an unknown number of employees continue to embezzle money.

One of the key things we learned from the leaks (aside from the ones mentioned in the article) is that the NSA has incredible power over their supposed masters (White house and Congress) So much so that they are free to lie (Even under oath) to them shamelessly with no worry of repercussions.

This really deserves to be listed on a summary? If I remember correctly this was in a report that disclosed that they had on average one incident a year, and among those incidents they had a few cases where someone entered their ex's name.

Considering the thousands of NSA employees that likely had access, I would think that this small amount of stupid acts marks them as being incredibly better at following rules than the vast majority of humanity.

If more than zero incidents is unacceptable then you are holding the government to a standard that can't be met. Analysts are human beings. They are apparently much more law abiding and responsible than the average person, but they are still human and someone is going to use poor judgement sooner or later.

So if only one employee of a private company embezzles a million dollars once per year, it should be acceptable? Most companies have the common sense to require dual signatures or other methods to *prevent* such incidents, rather than ignoring them and writing them off to "poor judgment" after the fact. I would expect a government agency entrusted with great secrets to be more proactive than a private company.

Those were all self-reported incidents.

A more app analogy would be an employee embezzles a million dollars and turns himself in while an unknown number of employees continue to embezzle money.

In which case, I would expect the board of directors would fire the CEO, CFO, and a few others. "What, you never anticipated this, then AFTER the first self-reported embezzlement, you still did nothing to prevent other occurrences? And several more have confessed but even now you have no audit to tell you just how many unreported thefts have taken place nor how much has been stolen?!?" This sounds like a comedic farce rather than responsible management.

This is one of the worst parts for me. The defense that "just because we didn't do the dirty work, it's not illegal or unconstitutional" should be one that bothers everyone. It smacks of hiring a hit man so you don't get charged with murder.

A Snowden leaked document disputes the idea that they're using the UK to circumvent US law:

Only one handpicked group of nations is excluded -- countries that the NSA has defined as close friends, or "2nd party," as one internal document indicates. They include the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. A document classified as "top secret" states that, "The NSA does NOT target its 2nd party partners, nor request that 2nd parties do anything that is inherently illegal for NSA to do."

Is there anything inherently illegal for the NSA to do? Of course, I mean in the opinion of the NSA.